In re Spears
309 Mich. App. 658
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DHS petitioned in 2010 under MCL 712A.2 alleging abuse/neglect; circuit court took jurisdiction and later a supplemental petition sought termination of the mother’s parental rights.
- Tribe initially thought minors were not members; after records were unsealed the tribe intervened in Dec. 2011 and the minors were enrolled in Feb. 2012.
- Mother’s rights were voluntarily released in April 2012; father’s rights were terminated. Foster parents (the Donns) sought to adopt; tribe preferred paternal grandparents.
- In Dec. 2013 the tribe moved to transfer adoption proceedings to tribal court; circuit court denied transfer in Feb. 2014 citing the advanced stage of the case and the children’s need for permanency.
- Circuit court relied on a broad “good cause” view (including timeliness and children’s best interests); tribe appealed under Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), MCL 712B.1 et seq.
- Court of Appeals reversed: MCL 712B.7(5) permits denial of transfer only where the tribe lacks a tribal court or presentation of evidence in tribal court would cause undue hardship that the tribe cannot mitigate; timeliness and best‑interests delay are not permissible bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712B.7(5)(b) allows denial of transfer based on case lateness / delay or child’s best interests | Tribe: statute requires transfer absent narrow good‑cause grounds; timeliness and best interests are not listed | Donns/circuit court: advanced stage, delay and child stress/permanency justify denying transfer | Court: Denial on timeliness/best‑interest grounds improper; MIFPA limits good cause to (a) no tribal court or (b) undue hardship from presenting evidence in tribal court that tribe cannot mitigate |
| What constitutes “undue hardship” under MCL 712B.7(5)(b) | Tribe: undue hardship must be tied to requirement to present evidence in tribal court and show tribe cannot mitigate | Donns: broader hardship to children and parties from disruption/delay qualifies | Court: Undue hardship must (1) be to parties/witnesses required to present evidence in tribal court, (2) arise from that requirement, and (3) be such that the tribe cannot mitigate it; court below did not make these findings |
| Whether a tribal court’s prior declination waives later transfer requests | Tribe: prior tribal declination does not bar later petition; no authority that tribal court can waive jurisdiction by declining earlier | Donns: argued prior tribal rejection should preclude transfer | Court: No authority supports waiver by mere prior declination; petition to transfer may be made at any time under Michigan rules |
| Standard of review and burden of proof for denying transfer under MIFPA | Tribe: clear‑and‑convincing standard applies to party opposing transfer | Donns: relied on circuit court’s factual findings about child welfare | Court: Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; factual findings for hardship reviewed for clear error; statute requires clear and convincing evidence by party opposing transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morris, 491 Mich 81 (discusses ICWA legislative history and standards)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 US 30 (establishes presumptive tribal jurisdiction for non‑reservation domiciled Indian children)
- Titan Ins Co v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 296 Mich App 75 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Book‑Gilbert v. Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538 (courts may not insert unexpressed statutory provisions)
- Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 472 Mich 192 (use of dictionary and plain‑meaning rules in statutory construction)